Nephilim

[mathinspiration]

Who were the Nephilim?

 

[mmksparbud]

What they are not is a product of humans and fallen angels mating!

The following is an excerpt from the book Ancient Hebrew Dictionary.
The plural form of elo'ah, meaning power, is elohiym and is often translated as Elohiym. While English plurals only identify quantity, as in more than one, the Hebrew plural can identify quantity as well as quality. Something that is of great size or stature can be written in the plural form. Elohiym is the one of great strength and authority.

Genesis 6:5
and Yhwh saw that the dysfunctions of the human in the land was abundant, and all the thoughts of inventions of his heart was only dysfunctional every day,
Genesis 6:8
and No'ahh found beauty in the eyes of Yhwh,
Genesis 6:9
these are the birthings of No'ahh, No'ahh existed a steadfast one and mature man in his generations, No'ahh walked himself with the Elohiym,
Genesis 6:11
and the land was damaged to the face of the Elohiym and the land was filled with violence,
Genesis 6:12
and Elohiym saw the land and look, she was damaged given that all the flesh destroyed his road upon the land,
Genesis 6:13
and Elohiym said to No'ahh, a conclusion of all the flesh has come to my face, given that the land of violence was filled from their face, and look at me, I am destroying them with the land,
13down voteaccepted
The word "nephilim" as used in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 is simply an anglocizing of the Hebrew word nephiyl. If it were to be translated it would be simply "the fallen".
this opens up a whole new hermeneutical question about how then should we interpret these people described both before the flood in Gen 6 as "the fallen" and then again after the flood when the spies brought back their report about the promised land being filled with "the fallen" who are also described as giants.
Different interpretations have described the nephilim as fallen angels, others as fallen men, some have categorized only the sons of Cain as the nephilim in Gen 6, but then how are they reappearing after the flood? or if it is fallen angels, do we see the earth invaded by fallen angels not once but twice?
I think the most consistent view of the Nephilim would consist of those who have fallen away from faith and reliance upon God. Those who think that they can achieve greatness absent from God's presence. Here is Clarke's reference...
Genesis 6:4
[There were giants in the earth] npiliym , from naaphal , "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by gigantes, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just disinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim , the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above, children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence, we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints, the former were termed gigantes (Greek), "earth-born", and the latter, hagioi , i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.
[The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.] giboriym , which we render "mighty men", signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from gaabar , "he prevailed, was victorious." and °ansheey hashem , "men of the name," anthroopoi onomastoi , Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.
It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim. gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...english-equivalent-for-nephilim-of-genesis-64

 

[R. Hartono]

There were giants on earth be4 the Noah deluge killed them all, they were descendant of fallen angels who had sex with woman of man.
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

Jude 1:6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day.

Fallen angels planned to destroy the gen of mankind so the Messiah can not be birthed to save us so they can rule over mankind and the world.
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[Hall]

What they are not is a product of humans and fallen angels mating!

The following is an excerpt from the book Ancient Hebrew Dictionary.
The plural form of elo'ah, meaning power, is elohiym and is often translated as Elohiym. While English plurals only identify quantity, as in more than one, the Hebrew plural can identify quantity as well as quality. Something that is of great size or stature can be written in the plural form. Elohiym is the one of great strength and authority.

Genesis 6:5
and Yhwh saw that the dysfunctions of the human in the land was abundant, and all the thoughts of inventions of his heart was only dysfunctional every day,
Genesis 6:8
and No'ahh found beauty in the eyes of Yhwh,
Genesis 6:9
these are the birthings of No'ahh, No'ahh existed a steadfast one and mature man in his generations, No'ahh walked himself with the Elohiym,
Genesis 6:11
and the land was damaged to the face of the Elohiym and the land was filled with violence,
Genesis 6:12
and Elohiym saw the land and look, she was damaged given that all the flesh destroyed his road upon the land,
Genesis 6:13
and Elohiym said to No'ahh, a conclusion of all the flesh has come to my face, given that the land of violence was filled from their face, and look at me, I am destroying them with the land,
13down voteaccepted
The word "nephilim" as used in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 is simply an anglocizing of the Hebrew word nephiyl. If it were to be translated it would be simply "the fallen".
this opens up a whole new hermeneutical question about how then should we interpret these people described both before the flood in Gen 6 as "the fallen" and then again after the flood when the spies brought back their report about the promised land being filled with "the fallen" who are also described as giants.
Different interpretations have described the nephilim as fallen angels, others as fallen men, some have categorized only the sons of Cain as the nephilim in Gen 6, but then how are they reappearing after the flood? or if it is fallen angels, do we see the earth invaded by fallen angels not once but twice?
I think the most consistent view of the Nephilim would consist of those who have fallen away from faith and reliance upon God. Those who think that they can achieve greatness absent from God's presence. Here is Clarke's reference...
Genesis 6:4
[There were giants in the earth] npiliym , from naaphal , "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by gigantes, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just disinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim , the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above, children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence, we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints, the former were termed gigantes (Greek), "earth-born", and the latter, hagioi , i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.
[The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.] giboriym , which we render "mighty men", signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from gaabar , "he prevailed, was victorious." and °ansheey hashem , "men of the name," anthroopoi onomastoi , Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.
It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim. gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...english-equivalent-for-nephilim-of-genesis-64

Don't know which Bible you are reading from but you are contradicting the true word of God.

 

[mmksparbud]

Don't know which Bible you are reading from but you are contradicting the true word of God.

Absolutely not--I am upholding it, as it was written--from the Mechanical Translation--it is a transliteration of the original Hebrew. It is this mating with fallen angels that is a total fabrication and a contradiction to the very character of God.

MT of the Torah - Home Page

 

[Sanoy]

The Nephilim were the offspring of the "sons of God", which was the title of a particular group of what we in English call Angels, and man. There is absolutely no legitimate way around this understanding. The idea that the "sons of God" were men is a relatively modern heresy that is immediately falsified in the verse below.

Job 38 places the Sons of God at the creation of the world.

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7when the morning stars sang together
and all the Son's of God shouted for joy?

 

[Sanoy]

The Septuagint translate the original word by gigantes, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature.

We actually have an enormous amount of reference. The sons of God are directly paralleled in Ugaritic texts especially in regards to Deuteronomy 32:8. The entire story of Genesis 6 is paralleled throughout the Ancient Near East and forms many of the central themes of the region. In the case of Greece the titans were born of Gaia (earth) and Uranus (sky). This mythology directly parallels with the content in the book of Enoch. We can see the same conditions in the fallen Igigi which is a composite word meaning "watchers" ( eye + surround) being renamed Anunnaki which is a composite word of anuna- sons of heaven and Ki - earth which reflected their acquired cythonic nature.

 

[Hall]

Absolutely not--I am upholding it, as it was written--from the Mechanical Translation--it is a transliteration of the original Hebrew. It is this mating with fallen angels that is a total fabrication and a contradiction to the very character of God.

MT of the Torah - Home Page

What do you make of these scriptures then, doesn't sound like a regular human being to me:
2 Samuel 21:20
And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants.

 

[mmksparbud]

No matter how much information is presented as to the meaning of these words in Hebrew---those who believe in fallen angels mating with humans-- will not believe it. Why anyone wants to believe such a thing is beyond me. Not only does it not add up with the correct meanings of these words, it makes no common sense either and does not reflect the character of God.

First of all---the original wording of
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
and Elohiym saw all which he made, and look, it is very functional, and evening existed and morning existed, a sixth day,
MT of the Torah - Home Page

God doesn't make the needless, the useless--what He makes is totally and completely "functional"--
There is not one single name of an angel that is not male. There are no females and same sex unions were not sanctioned by God nor could they bring forth children. Jesus said

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

The angels were created to be messengers--that is what their name means. They have their own purpose of which marriage and "fruitful and multiply"was never given them. They are not human, they were created above us, Jesus became lower than the angels to save us. They are not "our kind." At creation the instructions was "after their kind." Why would God give them reproductive organs, when they could not use them? The do not marry, the purpose of marriage was for reproduction. They would have been "dysfunctional" with useless parts, not the way God works. In order for them to impregnate humans, God would have had to recreate them in order to give them that ability and that really would make no sense for then He destroys all of mankind because of the crossbreeding??? The idea that God would have millions of angels, all desperately wanting to mate but unable to do so is not within His character. "It is not good for MAN to be alone"--and God created woman---you really think He would have left the angels without mates?? They had none, because they need none.
"There were giants in those days"---OK---where does it state that Adam and Eve were the height of modern man today? Those people lived hundreds of years, what makes anyone think that they were bot also very much larger than us--giants in comparison? That would have been a genetic trait passed down through Noah and the other 7 and there would have been pockets of genetic giant's after the dispersal at the tower of Babel for they parted into groups that could understand each other and most people lean towards being with those like themselves. In Africa you see giants-Massai, over 7 feet tall and pygmies, under 4 feet sometimes. Genetics. If the very tall are to be considered as offspring of fallen angels, what are the very short?? Even today, there are people with 6 fingers, their DNA is 100% human. So is the DNA of the very tall, the very short, the black, the white, the so called yellow and red.
The angels are depicted as some having wings---some 2, the cherubim's, some had 6--the seraphim's. Surely some of the fallen angels would have had wings---there is no mention of winged humans in the bible. Only the trait of being tall was passed from these fallen angels---no wings? The only thing mentioned about Lucifer was that he wanted to be God and he was lifted up because of his beauty---nothing mentioned about wanting to mate with someone.
Some of these believes go to totally absurd lengths in how big these offspring were---without regard to the physical limitations of the women involved to either handle the mating, nor, being able to handle giving birth to something 4-6 times bigger than she could physically accommodate. A little person today, giving birth to a normal sized baby is highly hazardous and they usually have to have a C section.
None of these things make any sense whatsoever.

 

[mmksparbud]

What do you make of these scriptures then, doesn't sound like a regular human being to me:
2 Samuel 21:20
And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants.

Top 10 Famous People With Extra Fingers or Toes

• 
  
• None photo shopped---all 100% human and there are many, many more
• 
  
  
  • 700 x 525 · jpeg
  • todup.blogspot.com
• 
  
  • 460 x 288 · jpeg
  • sammyboy.com
• 
  
  • 400 x 296 · jpeg
  • perpustakaan.blogspot.com
• 
  
  • 300 x 389 · jpeg
  • themedschoolproj…
• 
  
  • 600 x 275 · jpeg
  • myfivebest.com
• 
  
  • 306 x 200 · jpeg
  • runkle-science.wikispaces.com
• 
  
  • 630 x 422 · jpeg
  • saidthegramophone.com

• 
  
  • 700 x 525 · jpeg
  • soulflame-zine.blogspot.com
• 
  
  • 500 x 374 · jpeg
  • tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com
• 
  
  • 400 x 187 · jpeg
  • hahnconsultinggroup.com
• 
  
  • 320 x 243 · jpeg
  • reddit.com

 

[Hall]

Top 10 Famous People With Extra Fingers or Toes

• 
  
• None photo shopped---all 100% human and there are many, many more
• 
  
  • 700 x 525 · jpeg
  • todup.blogspot.com
• 
  • 460 x 288 · jpeg
  • sammyboy.com
• 
  • 400 x 296 · jpeg
  • perpustakaan.blogspot.com
• 
  • 300 x 389 · jpeg
  • themedschoolproj…
• 
  • 600 x 275 · jpeg
  • myfivebest.com
• 
  • 306 x 200 · jpeg
  • runkle-science.wikispaces.com
• 
  • 630 x 422 · jpeg
  • saidthegramophone.com

• 
  • 700 x 525 · jpeg
  • soulflame-zine.blogspot.com
• 
  • 500 x 374 · jpeg
  • tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com
• 
  • 400 x 187 · jpeg
  • hahnconsultinggroup.com
• 
  • 320 x 243 · jpeg
  • reddit.com

Scripture says the man descended from giants, in other words an offspring of the Nephilim, doesn't say he had birth defects.

 

[Hall]

Who were the Nephilim?

They were the result of fallen angels mating with human women.

 

[mmksparbud]

Scripture says the man descended from giants, in other words an offspring of the Nephilim, doesn't say he had birth defects.

That is what they had!

The word "nephilim" as used in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 is simply an anglocizing of the Hebrew word nephiyl. If it were to be translated it would be simply "the fallen".
this opens up a whole new hermeneutical question about how then should we interpret these people described both before the flood in Gen 6 as "the fallen" and then again after the flood when the spies brought back their report about the promised land being filled with "the fallen" who are also described as giants.
Different interpretations have described the nephilim as fallen angels, others as fallen men, some have categorized only the sons of Cain as the nephilim in Gen 6, but then how are they reappearing after the flood? or if it is fallen angels, do we see the earth invaded by fallen angels not once but twice?
I think the most consistent view of the Nephilim would consist of those who have fallen away from faith and reliance upon God. Those who think that they can achieve greatness absent from God's presence. Here is Clarke's reference...
Genesis 6:4
[There were giants in the earth] npiliym , from naaphal , "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by gigantes, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just disinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim , the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above, children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence, we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints, the former were termed gigantes (Greek), "earth-born", and the latter, hagioi , i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.
[The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.] giboriym , which we render "mighty men", signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from gaabar , "he prevailed, was victorious." and °ansheey hashem , "men of the name," anthroopoi onomastoi , Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.
It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim. gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...english-equivalent-for-nephilim-of-genesis-64

 

[Hall]

That is what they had!

I believe in the written word of God, not in what someone is assuming to be the truth. Most of the things you have posted are assumptions to try to explain who the Nephilim were. The word of God clearly states who the Nephilim were in all Bible versions. However I do agree that this isn't an important part of the Bible and not very spiritually edifying anyways. The important part is to apply the word of God in our lives.

 

[mmksparbud]

I believe in the written word of God, not in what someone is assuming to be the truth. Most of the things you have posted are assumptions to try to explain who the Nephilim were. The word of God clearly states who the Nephilim were in all Bible versions. However I do agree that this isn't an important part of the Bible and not very spiritually edifying anyways. The important part is to apply the word of God in our lives.

The word of God was written in Hebrew----and it is that language that needs to be understood clearly in order for there to be a correct interpretation. It is foolish to give modern meaning to ancient words that were understood in different ways at the time they were written, It then becomes the words of man's interpretation and not the words of God and leads us into wrong ideas. Assumptions are what you are making based on wrong meanings of a few words. It is always best to try to understand the original words themselves at the time they were written within the culture it was written.

 

[Hall]

The word of God was written in Hebrew----and it is that language that needs to be understood clearly in order for there to be a correct interpretation. It is foolish to give modern meaning to ancient words that were understood in different ways at the time they were written, It then becomes the words of man's interpretation and not the words of God and leads us into wrong ideas. Assumptions are what you are making based on wrong meanings of a few words. It is always best to try to understand the original words themselves at the time they were written within the culture it was written.

I agree that Greek and Hebrew are the accurate translations of the Bible but it seems as though the one trying to explain those verses in Hebrew is assuming a lot of things and trying to understand these verses him/herself.
I personaly like this explanation:
Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?

 

[mmksparbud]

I agree that Greek and Hebrew are the accurate translations of the Bible but it seems as though the one trying to explain those verses in Hebrew is assuming a lot of things and trying to understand these verses him/herself.
I personaly like this explanation:
Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?

Interpretations of words from the original language should not be base on ones likes and dislikes. Accuracy is what is important. It is after all, the words of God that we want to understand, whether we like them or not. It is His truth that is important and must align with His character. And this does not align with His character as I stated in post #9. And those are not the musing of one man, but the study done by several. We are all entitled to our own believes and this one is one of those that most do not want to let go of, for some reason. I just prefer accuracy. God words are potent---He spoke a world into existence--when He speaks, the elements obey, He chooses His words carefully for what He says is. Had Jesus not said "Lazarus come forth"---and just said, "come forth"--every grave would have opened. If God were to say, the grass is blue and the sky is green, that is what would immediately happen. That is why we need to know what His words were and what they actually mean.

 

[Sanoy]

No matter how much information is presented as to the meaning of these words in Hebrew---those who believe in fallen angels mating with humans-- will not believe it. Why anyone wants to believe such a thing is beyond me. Not only does it not add up with the correct meanings of these words, it makes no common sense either and does not reflect the character of God.

It's not that people want to believe it, it's just what the text naturally says. Changing that orthodox understanding as you do is heresy. You cannot name a single person or source that thought the nephilim and sons of God were men during or before Jesus's time. The view you maintain is a 5-6th century response to a growing criticism of giants. That view is a relatively modern heresy.

It doesn't add up because you are not using the correct meanings of the words. If nephilim had meant fallen ones the Septuagint translators would have used the word for fallen ones, not gigantes.

Matthew 22:30 is always brought up in objection while ignoring Job 38:7. Matthew 22 compares future marriage to how things are in heaven. The sons of God left their heavenly estate when they decended.

The bible doesn't say the angels cannot take on the functionality of men. That is pure speculation. Angels can even eat food as they did with Abraham. The sodomites even desired to have sex with the angel in Lots house.

There is no way to scripturally defend the sethite theory. If the sons of God were men what are they doing at the creation of the world in Job 38:7? To deal with that verse you will have destroy scripture for the sake of avoiding an unpalatable conclusion. That is not good thing to do.

 

[mmksparbud]

It's not that people want to believe it, it's just what the text naturally says. Changing that orthodox understanding as you do is heresy. You cannot name a single person or source that thought the nephilim and sons of God were men during or before Jesus's time. Your view is a 5-6th century response to a growing criticism of giants. It is a relatively modern heresy.

It doesn't add up because you are not using the correct meanings of the words. If nephilim had meant fallen ones the Septuagint translators would have used the word for fallen ones, not gigantes.

Matthew 22:30 is always brought up in objection while ignoring Job 38:7. Matthew 22 compares future marriage to how things are in heaven. The sons of God left their heavenly estate when they decended.

The bible doesn't say the angels cannot take on the functionality of men. That is pure speculation. Angels can even eat food as they did with Abraham. The sodomites even desired to have sex with the angel in Lots house.

There is no way to scripturally defend the sethite theory, it is a modern heresy. If the sons of God were men what are they doing at the creation of the world in Job 38:7? To deal with that verse you will have destroy scripture for the sake of avoiding an unpalatable conclusion. That is not good thing to do

LOL! That is not my response--it is the response of many others--I quoted Jewish scholars! And it is not a modern heresy! The modern heresy is what you are stating as that was not the considered interpretation! However--you're entitled to your opinion. I've been dealing with it since the first time I heard of it--which wasn't until about 30 years ago. I've heard all sorts of theories ln how this was done--from God recreated them so they could be functional, to it they are angels--we are crested lower than them. magically happened when they fell. Appearing as human does not make them physically human! And of course the Sodomites wanted them--they looked like men---you think God created ugly angels? Lucifer was lifted up because of his beauty. the whole town came after them. It obviously was not a 2-way attraction.
I've heard the Job thing before--it was also what the Mormons use to teach their believe that we existed before we were born--literally children of God and a heavenly mother--that require human bodies so they can come down here and learn how to obey God! Noah is Gabriel to them.
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

This was a gathering of the created beings from all over the universe--Satan was there as representative of this earth for he is the prince of this world, he acquired it at the fall. The rest of those beings follow God. These are heavenly conclaves. You think God doesn't still hold these??

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

You think the rest of creation was not watching when God created this world? Of course they were--and yes--they shouted for joy over it.

Angels are of a higher order than humans---as we are above apes---humans and apes, for all the so called similarities of DNA, can not reproduce. We are not the same kind, nor are we with angels.
​

You are ignoring too many common sense problems.

It doesn't add up because you are not using the correct meanings of the words.

This is about the correct meaning of the words--not my meaning--the Hebrew meaning--

"The word "nephilim" as used in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 is simply an anglocizing of the Hebrew word nephiyl. If it were to be translated it would be simply "the fallen"."

"It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim. gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database."

It's you choice whether to believe those familiar with the language or those that aren't.

"and the sons of the Elohiym saw the daughters of the human, that they were functional, and took for them women from all which they chose,"
MTT: Genesis 6

"The following is an excerpt from the book Ancient Hebrew Dictionary.
The plural form of elo'ah, meaning power, is elohiym and is often translated as Elohiym. While English plurals only identify quantity, as in more than one, the Hebrew plural can identify quantity as well as quality. Something that is of great size or stature can be written in the plural form. Elohiym is the one of great strength and authority. "

This is not a salvation issue. However, it is one about accuracy, and whenever there is a biblical disagreement, I will always prefer to side with --what does a particular believe say about the character of God? Does it align with His divine attributes of perfect love, justice, mercy? 2 opposing sides of an argument may both be based on the bible---the deciding factor, for me, then boils down to what it says about Him.

 

[Sanoy]

LOL! That is not my response--it is the response of many others--I quoted Jewish scholars! And it is not a modern heresy! The modern heresy is what you are stating as that was not the considered interpretation!

Great. Then meet my challenge. Quote a single person from Jesus's time or before that believed the "Sons of God" were men. The reason you can't is because that idea did not exist until around the 5-6 century. That is why it is a modern heresy. Literally 0 scriptural authors believed in that theory. Not even Paul himself who told women to cover their heads for the sake of the Angels. Or the author of Jude who quotes the Book of Enoch as prophecy.

Your belief that angels can only become Ken dolls is complete speculation that is not found in the Bible.

In Jude 38:7 Tell me how mankind is witnessing the formation of the earth? You can't, because Sons of God are not men.

Tell me why the translators of the LLX would translate Nephilim as Gigantes if it means "fallen ones". You can't.

All of those tribes are post flood Nephilim tribes. Adam Clarke wrote in the late 1700's to early 1800's. This is by no means modern scholarship.

Look at your Ancient Hebrew Dictionary. See that fishhook and the rams heads by the Hebrew form? Those are the proto-Canaanite forms for EL. Yes Hebrew grammar nominally allows for Elohim to be read as "powers" not that it does use it as "powers". Genesis 6 uses the definite article Ha Elohim. Even if you translate it "powers" it doesn't mean living men, as it is clearly used in Genesis 1 for God. That this book does not even mention "god" or divine being like the rest of the world should tell you Jeff Benners is either not up on modern scholarship or deliberately leaving that part out.

You claim your hermenutics follow this rule...
"This is not a salvation issue. However, it is one about accuracy, and whenever there is a biblical disagreement, I will always prefer to side with --what does a particular believe say about the character of God?"

...This is just a description of bias not exegesis. We learn about the Character of God through the Bible. It is circular to use our perceptions of God to modulate what we think the ancient authors believed God was like. That leads to nothing but heresy. If you want to know about God just read the Bible. Don't try and "fix" it the way you think it should be. Let the authors speak what they mean without your influence.